In the early 20th century, the Sapir-Whorf theory of linguistic relativity came to form, with the intentions of reinventing the way humans think regarding speech. What if words have more meaning beyond the synonymous phonics associated with the vibration of our vocal cords? Language itself may have more capabilities besides those of the predisposed concept of mere observances and conveyances and yet, the full potential cannot be tapped by the academic pipeline. An example of this from my experience would be in relation to the Placebo Effect. As a child, I was told a pulsating ache within the structure of my cranial would be best cured by the existence of a mere pill. This pill lost effect however, when knowledge became synonymous with age, the result was the observance of a blatantly generic multi-vitamin that had no direct correlation with headache prevention. Were the immediate effects of the pill due to inexistent biological means? Or perhaps the power of words altered my perception of a seemingly unanswered question, something my body was desperately looking for. The transaction of ideas took place in the exact area of those resulting aches, just as well, the capability language possessed in determining perception took hold. This fueled my interest in what is known as linguistic relativity, the true nature of words may not be descriptors of current coherent perceptions, but the construct of an exact opposite. The theory of Linguistic Relativity has a large effect on determining social-economic equality in opportunity, as well as, affecting an individual’s perception of place-time events relating to memory retention.
Niche
Although the theory of linguistic relativity has been researched before, the sole topic of differing language to language in a broad sense will not be the only substance incorporated as with past and current studies done by other individuals. This will be a more individual focus on everyday life, relating to the economic and physical impact language can have on an individual in current society, not in mass.
Methodology
To conduct primary research, a survey was employed for an independent analysis of the given situation. Historically, such a practice is one of the fastest and relatively accurate ways to gather data amongst a diverse group of people. A total of twenty college students received such surveys, nonetheless in a classroom whose teachings were centered around the analysis and use of the English language. It is no secret that this particular group of people were essential in gauging the opinions around language and what the presumptive students deemed to be its limitations. The intentions of such, were to determine what the perspective of the degree seeking individuals provided. It was also important to depict how willing the academic field would be in accepting changes in the construct of language.
Secondary research consisted of an extraordinary amount of research within a given time frame. This included around 30 articles an hour, with the predominate focus of searching for an appropriate author that provided statistical significance with an undisputed claim at reputation and opinion formulation. The devices used to cut down on time and create an efficient claim on study pertained to that of Google Scholar and the existing search catalog from the University of Central Florida’s library. Individual strategy taken for this process included a brief review of the abstract provided with a background check on author credibility, if such was needed.
Contribution to the Conversation
In observance across many views on Linguistic Relativity, the glaring need to divert focus apart from regional comparisons in language was needed. A study from Soheon Kim stated “Language is a key cultural and cognitive attribute which can shape the way people think and behave. Research in economics has tested the influence of language on human consumption and found that languages that explicitly mark future events” (Kim 163). This statement confounds his opinion on the topic before the substance of study was brought at hand. The results of which he mentioned, drew off of the comparison between Korean and Mandarin languages, where pro environmental attitudes were more prominent among the Mandarin speakers (Kim 163). Indicators such as this, provide a substantial amount of proof in the comparisons of perception on language. Kim’s originating statement may have been correct among those in relation to his study, however to John Macnamara what was deemed deductive argument, in fact, was inductive reasoning. Macnamara disagreed by saying “The emphasis on the universal sublinguistic does not preclude linguistic relativity of a more manageable and more peripheral sort than Whorf was advocating” (Macnamara 59). His explanation of such an experiment would pertain to the count noun status and how the term to individualize a word with a mechanism to trace its identity play effect on perception (Macnamara 57). This would relate to the strategy of use in a language, not the context of its phonics. He explains this with a soliloquy outlining how children learn with an example of the word “frog” in the English language (57). To counter-point without the indifference of phonics, a known phenomenon in the Placebo Effect could not be explained away merely by count noun status, identifying origins natural to language would be indicative to indicate false meaning, this correlating to an alternate reality based on a child understanding a particular meaning to a word, only to have perception shift based on false intent with a positive outcome.
Dietha Koster was affiliated with an experiment occurring recently this year. “We examine whether placement verbs affect how speakers categorize (Experiment 1); memorize (Experiment 2) and mentally simulate (Experiment 3) object orientation” (Koster 27). The result of the testing showed that although Germans “categorize object position differently or make mental simulations of object orientation. They do show that German speakers have better recognition memory for object position than Spanish speakers” (Koster). Based on the indicators, Koster has obtained results focused on the vernacular surrounding object placement, which indicates higher memory retention for an action-based concept. Another individual that would be likely in agreement is Phillip Wolff. It was based off of his studies, that a conclusive determination was reached in referring to human language as inducing a schematic way of thinking (Wolff 253-265). “We do find support for the proposal that language can make some distinctions difficult to avoid, as well as for the proposal that language can augment certain types of thinking” (Wolff). It is important to note that Wolff and Koster reside in separate fields of academia, creating a trend of conceptual findings. If language can affect certain ways of thinking, it’s implications on social-economics could also be considered. “In many societies some of the most important of these sociolinguistic divisions are associated with differences in social prestige, wealth, and power. Bankers clearly do not talk the same as busboys, and professors don’t sound like plumbers” (Guy 37). Although Guy was not directly studying linguistic relativity, his statement does reside in the minds of most people. Social differences are existent in regard to language, the next question should be: Could the busboy get a job as a banker? Well probably not, even with the adequate knowledge and degree of the job, the busboy would have an inadequate shot in a perfectly competitive market. The expectations of vernacular exist across almost all jobs and its usually based on pay. An individual working at McDonalds would be expected to have a lesser vernacular in comparison to someone seen in Bank of America attire based on societal norms. Notice how the difference in jobs are not just focused on prestige, but monetary value as well.
Chi-Shing Tse led a different kind of case, where in disproving a case relating to linguistic relativity, he also discovered a subtle difference. In an experiment based off of Boroditsky’s pertaining to faster temporal targeting between Chinese-English speakers and monolinguals of the English tongue, he stated “we failed to conceptually replicate her English monolinguals' findings: both Chinese-English bilinguals and English monolinguals were faster to verify the sentences after seeing a vertical spatial prime than a horizontal spatial prime” (Tse 335-357). Although disproving some of Boroditsky’s findings, there was noted similarity between the speakers, that vertical spatial primes promoted faster verification than the horizontal counter parts (Tse). The continuing research has netted frequent results for those for and against. It is promising to see such studies, as every valid theory throughout human history has sparked debate, criticism, and experimentation.
In a survey conducted by myself to fellow students at the University of Central Florida, it was found that 85% believed that language could result in the construction of social classes (Walker). This confounds the public conception of upper-class vs lower-class for more intricate usage of verbs and sentence structure. The statistical analysis also concluded in 70% of students claiming that first encounter with an individual was primarily reliant on vocabulary. If such indicators like this ring true in a classroom, it can also be assumed even more so in the event of a job interview, where the process of achievement is more thorough and selective. Although evidence does not point to concrete and definite proof of linguistic relativity, all observed sources believed in the possibility in certain parameters regarding the theory.
The predominate pattern of thought throughout the research relied on the unknowns of language limitations, unsurprisingly in reference to the theory, the experiences and observances of the reputable authors ended in more questions than theoretical answers. Based the provided experiments, it would seem evidence favors language as having at least a minimum effect on human perception, as the contrary would create a trend of experimental failures, not consistencies.
Conclusion
Writing this very paper is the result of linguistic perception, just as the numbers that are used in mathematics. A societal separation of words and numbers seem to be unjust, a statement that can be made in reference to the societal misinterpretation of separation in the subjects. The potential for advancing human thought is not out of reach, the resulting impact of this theory promotes future equality in job opportunities and a higher degree of human capacity for learning. Vernacular equality between monetarily divided class structures could be what creates the historically inducive economic dividing line. Just as well, perhaps lies aren’t simply false misgivings of perceptual encounters, they’re reality altering cases of hypnosis allowing an upper hand from the experience gathered by the speaker, thereby altering the same perceptual encounters the listener envisions and experiences. Tomorrow can be the start of yesterday, or yesterday can be the start of tomorrow, that depends on you. As all of the available support indicates to this moment, language does impact a being’s perception and the usage can have a monetary effect on an individual’s way of life.